News OFFICIAL: Gary Ablett traded to Geelong

[Stan The Caddy]

I don't mind it.. Can't think too many defensers would be thinking "awesome... Here comes GAJ and PFD as small resting forwards..."

The issue for me is the pounds of flesh GCS will demand and possibly get...

It just can't work that way IMO. SC hit of 500 k I could take but to lose high picks and or young talent to facilitate it soes or sit well with me.

Go Catters

Oh no doubt. It has to be on our terms. Otherwise, no deal!

 

[Mahlepi]

Oh no doubt. It has to be on our terms. Otherwise, no deal!

No deal
And we all move on, he signed a 3 year deal, and then wanted to walk out
He is just a money hungry twat
Don't need his attitude

 

[Vdubs]

The new Leigh Matthews.
I hope it gets done TBH. I'm sure it will.

The new Gary Ablett

 

[ShaunWDT]

We will give up next to nothing for him, look at the Mitchell deal, it will get done.

 

[Seeds]

We will give up next to nothing for him, look at the Mitchell deal, it will get done.

Mitchell wasnt contracted. Ablett is. Hawthorn had salary cap issues. Gold coast doesnt after all its defections.

 

[Seeds]

Trade will get done this year. And I personally can't wait for the epic meltdowns that will ensue. Then the deafening silence when he comes out and kicks 6 in his first game as a pseudo full forward.

You are acting like a fool. Please stop.

 

[Spazz Cat]

The new Gary Ablett

Clint Bizzell?

 

[Partridge]

The new Gary Ablett

As tempting as it is to think "well Ablett could just do what his dad and Leigh Matthews did", there are some important facts to remember:

1. Ablett will turn 33 this May, and if - IF - he were to return to Geelong (which I very much doubt), he'll turn 34 with a few months of his first season back.
2. Leigh Matthews retired at age 33.
3. Gary Ablett senior played his last senior game at age 34.

So as much as we like to think so, they aren't eternal and they don't last forever.

Suspect it's an entertaining but purely theoretical exercise anyway. I'll believe Ablett is returning when he runs out on the field in a Geelong jumper. Not before.

 

[FredLeDeux]

As tempting as it is to think "well Ablett could just do what his dad and Leigh Matthews did", there are some important facts to remember:
1. Ablett will turn 33 this May, and if - IF - he were to return to Geelong (which I very much doubt), he'll turn 34 with a few months of his first season back.
2. Leigh Matthews retired at age 33.
3. Gary Ablett senior played his last senior game at age 34.
So as much as we like to think so, they aren't eternal and they don't last forever.
Suspect it's an entertaining but purely theoretical exercise anyway. I'll believe Ablett is returning when he runs out on the field in a Geelong jumper. Not before.

An early contender in the 2017 Annual Tautology of the Year Trophy Award prima facie appears to have swept the board in a landslide.

 

[Turbocat]

The only thing that matters to me is that he'll be 33 in May.

IMO , there would be very few circumstances where recruiting a 33 year old (in afl) would be a smart move. Obviously FA changes the upfront cost , and cheap trades can do likewise... but a 33 year old is a very short term looking recruitment strategy .. and there would be a long term cost. Someones position wold be affected and whats the consequences of that. I wonder if it could almost be considered selfish by the people who would sign off on it.

 

[Partridge]

An early contender in the 2017 Annual Tautology of the Year Trophy Award prima facie appears to have swept the board in a landslide.

It's a reality that can't be stressed enough.

 

[Turbocat]

Trade will get done this year. And I personally can't wait for the epic meltdowns that will ensue. Then the deafening silence when he comes out and kicks 6 in his first game as a pseudo full forward.

Its all about cost short term and long. And if we recruit him and he kicks 6 in a big final for us Id almost say the long term cost may be worth it. Has he ever kicked 6? Wage is something they can work on , I doubt we will be paying a 33 year 1M , and of course we do not know what the cost of the deal would be, or which player we give up who may be playing well after GA has retired. Players his age should be FA. The rule is half pregnant.

 

[Partridge]

Its all about cost short term and long. And if we recruit him and he kicks 6 in a big final for us Id almost say the long term cost may be worth it. Has he ever kicked 6? Wage is something they can work on , I doubt we will be paying a 33 year 1M , and of course we do not know what the cost of the deal would be, or which player we give up who may be playing well after GA has retired. Players his age should be FA. The rule is half pregnant.

Once. Versus Fremantle in 2006. Not entirely convinced he's going to be repeating that too frequently.

Risk vastly outweighs the reward as far as I can see.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Once. Versus Fremantle in 2006. Not entirely convinced he's going to be repeating that too frequently.

Risk vastly outweighs the reward as far as I can see.

Not too often I agree with you on list issues, but it's just impossible to see how this could ever be worth the inevitable price.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Not too often I agree with you on list issues, but it's just impossible to see how this could ever be worth the inevitable price.

IF the Suns are smart he'll barely cost anything.
They know he doesn't wanna be there. Can't be good for team culture etc.
History shows you don't win a flag with a player on 1mill a year.
There's no doubt they'd be better off letting him go, paying half his wage and attracting a long term player with the 500k they've got left, back end their contract as they'll have another 500 free the year after.
Their president seems the type to let his stubbornness get in the way of what's best for the club however.

 

[catempire]

Not so much his age that troubles me - I've thought in the past he could play until his late 30s - but how are his shoulders going?

If the cost was low enough I'd be fine with it but can't see that being the case.

 

[foodles05]

Can someone please exercise explain to me the risk! If we get him for not much from the GC and he isn't on much money which he won't be then what is the risk. What one list spot? 2 years of one list spot!! How is that a risk?

 

[Willo_]

Not too often I agree with you on list issues, but it's just impossible to see how this could ever be worth the inevitable price.

The inevitable price is what concerns me the most, GC won't just let him leave for nothing.... and I am worried how much we would be willing to cough up to make it happen

 

[Willo_]

Can someone please exercise explain to me the risk! If we get him for not much from the GC and he isn't on much money which he won't be then what is the risk. What one list spot? 2 years of one list spot!! How is that a risk?

we won't get him for not much

The Suns have proven themselves notoriously hard to deal with, they will want the world

 

[Spazz Cat]

Can someone please exercise explain to me the risk! If we get him for not much from the GC and he isn't on much money which he won't be then what is the risk. What one list spot? 2 years of one list spot!! How is that a risk?

Yeah I don't get the risk. Doubt the club is going to give up much for him.
With $. I don't know the rules with contracts. If it could be voided he'd take way less money to be down here. He'd make most of it back with media & endorsements anyway.
As far as taking games from young players. 2 of our small forwards have foot injuries. Fair chance they could miss a bit of footy on and off anyway.

 

[Spazz Cat]

we won't get him for not much

The Suns have proven themselves notoriously hard to deal with, they will want the world

That prez is dick. But they'll be paying 1mill for a player who doesn't want to be there. They'd be better off letting him go for nothing.

 

[Willo_]

Not so much his age that troubles me - I've thought in the past he could play until his late 30s - but how are his shoulders going?

If the cost was low enough I'd be fine with it but can't see that being the case.

I would have been rapt if we had made it happen the trade period just gone (and provided the cost wasn't too high)
I am not as interested anymore, but depending on how his year goes that may change

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yeah I don't get the risk. Doubt the club is going to give up much for him.
With $. I don't know the rules with contracts. If it could be voided he'd take way less money to be down here. He'd make most of it back with media & endorsements anyway.
As far as taking games from young players. 2 of our small forwards have foot injuries. Fair chance they could miss a bit of footy on and off anyway.

Of course, we could always use an established high-quality medium forward who kicks goals, creates goals for team-mates, runs through the middle and generally gives the opposition buggery.
If only so we could then stick with the now established club tradition of giving him away.
For nothing.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Of course, we could always use an established high-quality medium forward who kicks goals, creates goals for team-mates, runs through the middle and generally gives the opposition buggery.
If only so we could then stick with the now established club tradition of giving him away.
For nothing.

Ha ha ha ha. It is. Brilliant.

 

[catempire]

I would have been rapt if we had made it happen the trade period just gone (and provided the cost wasn't too high)
I am not as interested anymore, but depending on how his year goes that may change

That's the other issue with it - if he goes well this year his price to acquire will be high. If he goes poorly, well, do we really want him?